Originally Posted By TomSawyer Obama on the day that Sandy began hitting the American mainland: <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/imagecache/embedded_img_full/image/image_file/p102812ps-0424.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.whitehouse.gov/site...0424.jpg</a> George Bush the day Katrina hit New Orleans: <a href="http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/4494/large/Bush__McCain.jpg?1346238921" target="_blank">http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-pro...46238921</a>
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost That would be very significant if Obama were running against Bush this year, but unless I've been mislead, he isn't!
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 The whole country was unprepared for Katrina, even the Governor of the state affected. I would like to think our entire country learned from the Katrina mess as it was a disaster in more ways than one and not entirely the fault of the President... Plus it helps it happened one week before an election, you bet your a$$ President Obama was all over this...
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The real difference, though, is that Obama, like Clinton before him but unlike Bush, has staffed FEMA with professionals, not cronies (i.e. "you're doing a heck of a job, Brownie," the guy from the International Arabian Horse Association, of all places). And thus FEMA was well poised to respond to Sandy. Any president himself can't do all that much other than expedite certain things (which Obama has done); the real work is in making sure FEMA is a well-functioning agency that can do what it needs to do when the time comes. It was a highly regarded agency under Clinton; a disaster under Bush; now highly regarded again. Obama's head of FEMA comes from the Florida Division of Emergency Management, i.e. a professional from a state that knows about hurricanes. Oh, and by the way, he's a Republican that Obama did not hesitate to appoint, because he's a professional who's good at his job, in a position that should properly be apolitical in the first place. Clinton and Obama both viewed FEMA as a priority. Bush didn't, and appointed a crony with no experience in emergency management to head it. Romney has said emergency management shouldn't even have a federal component. Who do you suppose he'd appoint? Perhaps whoever oversaw his olympic showhorse is free.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <Romney has said emergency management shouldn't even have a federal component.> Where's the link for that claim?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 During a primary debate, Romney was asked by the moderator (John King, I believe) if FEMA should be eliminated, and Romney answered that every time you could take a federal responsibility and return it to the states, you should. And even better, you should privatize it. King even asked Romney to clarify that he meant to include emergency response in that. The clip has been all over the news in recent days, for obvious reasons.
Originally Posted By utahjosh They somehow forget to include the part where Romney said that there are indeed many Federal organizations that are important and work well on the Federal level. Romney NEVER said FEMA should be disbanded. He was talking principles in general - to question and cut big government when necessary.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Where's the link for that claim?<< Ka-CHOWW! <a href="http://tinyurl.com/ctbakk7" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/ctbakk7</a> >>During a CNN debate at the height of the GOP primary, Mitt Romney was asked, in the context of the Joplin disaster and FEMA's cash crunch, whether the agency should be shuttered so that states can individually take over responsibility for disaster response. "Absolutely," he said. "Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction. And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector, that's even better. Instead of thinking, in the federal budget, what we should cut, we should ask the opposite question, what should we keep?" "Including disaster relief, though?" debate moderator John King asked Romney. "We cannot -- we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids," Romney replied. "It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we'll all be dead and gone before it's paid off. It makes no sense at all."<< "Principles in general", Josh? Reread the followup question to which Mitt was responding. Several times if you need to.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "Reread the followup question to which Mitt was responding." Exactly. Romney's campaign is now dishonestly (there's that word again) trying to fudge this and say he didn't say what he said, but when faced with that question, specifically about FEMA, he said "absolutely.".
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>to question and cut big government when necessary<< Watch how states and cities climb out of the aftermath of Sandy. Somethings, like it or not, can't or won't be helped by the private sector alone. We're a country for a reason -- we support each other in times of crisis. And when it's run properly, by professionals, FEMA is an example of tax dollars well spent. Romney had a chance, with the follow up by John King, to clarify. he did. I'm sure you don't like the answer, especially as the events of Sandy continue to illustrate what a foolhardy view of the world Romney has in this regard, but there it is. He said it, was given a follow up chance to clarify, and doubled down. Of course, I'm sure Captain Etch-a-Sketch is talking out of the other side of his mouth today.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Of course, I'm sure Captain Etch-a-Sketch is talking out of the other side of his mouth today. << While the President and his team are looking for ways to pin this storm on a You Tube video...
Originally Posted By TomSawyer No, they are pinning it - or at least the power of it - on climate change. Something the GOP thinks is a great big joke.
